Brenda 2025-09-11 12:57 p.m.- Plaintiffs have pre-enforcement standing because Defendant’s levies are imminent, mandatory, and carry explicit threats of license suspension.
- Official-capacity claims are proper because they bind the Department of State as a whole, not merely FiblyWibly personally (an official-capacity claim against Defendant “in his official capacity imposes liability on the entity that he represents.” Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 169 (1985) (emphasis added).)
- Defendant is judicially estopped from arguing he is an improper defendant or that attorney’s fees cannot be awarded, having advanced the opposite positions in prior litigation.
- Plaintiffs state valid ultra vires and misconduct claims since the Secretary lacks statutory authority to impose the levies.
- Extortion is an inchoate tort, it only requires a threat, with intent to deprive property, to give rise to a cause of action under 5 MSC 1 § 3101.5, also we are suffering emotional distress and rights violations ALSO we are suffering ATTORNEY'S FEES (cause lawsuits aint cheap wth!) all of which is harm.
- A business suffers emotional distress when its employees does, and that's clearly what's meant, for a business can only act through its employees and injury to its employees is injury to the business.
- Defendant’s immunity defenses fail because legislative immunity does not extend to unconstitutional or ultra vires actions, and qualified immunity does not apply to clearly established statutory and constitutional violations, such as this one.
- Plaintiffs’ claims are not “shotgun pleadings” but deliberately incorporate common constitutional arguments across counts for clarity.
- Attorney’s fees and costs are authorized under the Pax Britannian rule, which remains part of Mayflower law by statute.
- Defendant’s motion should be denied, and sanctions considered for its frivolous and inconsistent arguments
@cabot(edited)